Uraeus frieze with curved element above probably from a queen's Hathor crown
Description
New Kingdom, Amarna Period, Dynasty 18, reign of Akhenaten, ca. 1353–1336 B.C. Red quartzite. H. 8.5 × W. 5.5 × D. 2.5 cm (3 3/8 × 2 3/16 × 1 in.). From: Great Temple of the Aten, pit outside southern wall, Amarna (Akhetaten), Middle Egypt, Egypt. Excavation: Petrie/Carter excavations, 1891–92. Credit: Harris Brisbane Dick Fund, 1957.
AI image analysis GPT-5.4-nano
Machine-generated from the object's image on Jul 2026. Not curatorial; treat deities, names, and signs below as the model's best reading, not authority.
Small carved stone fragment showing shallow relief elements that could be part of a decorative ureaus/hathor crown frieze.
The image shows a triangular, broken fragment of reddish, rough stone with a light surface granulation consistent with a quartzite piece. Across the upper portion are two rounded, symmetrical raised forms and beneath them a shallow groove/edge line, creating the appearance of a repeating motif typical of crown/diadem decoration. No clear ureaus head, cobra body, or vertically oriented uraeus coil is distinctly visible; the curved/arched element mentioned in the catalogue is not unambiguously seen in this view. No hieroglyphic inscriptions or any Greek/Coptic/Arabic text are visible. The fragment’s edges and back are unfinished/broken, indicating it is a section from a larger decorative element.
Cross-references (4)
- Wikidata-Q Q116275584 tier-1
- Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- Inventory-Number 57.180.177 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- MET-Object 561691 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
About this record's data
- From the source institution — accession, description, dimensions, and dating are as catalogued by Metropolitan Museum of Art — Egyptian Art (Open Access).
- AI-inferred — the image-analysis panel (deities, names, signs) is machine-generated and may be wrong.
- Approximate location — most map points are plotted at the site centroid, not the exact findspot.
- Inferred links — cross-references marked with a match method other than explicit-source-field were matched by us, not stated by the source.